Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
'Food stamps and welfare are slave traps. They are the democrats' modern version of big game pits.Shame on you for talking in stereotypes. IF is a pretty big word, and IF you think you can dictate how these low income folks live their lives and spend their money, go for it. I think you might find it difficult. In the meantime, their kids aren't getting the groceries they need for healthy brain development and sturdy bones, etc. Malnutrition is absolutely unforgivable in this nation. Yes, I agree that we need to make a serious effort to get some folks off perpetual welfare; that starts by making sure the current children living in poverty have the best start we can give them. THAT is what changes the situation, eventually. There is no overnight magic wand solution.
I don't care how they live their lives.
You need to develop critical thinking skills.
You're falling prey to emotional blackmail. boo hooo...."those poor children!"
It is also the means by which the left infiltrates our rural communities and schools.
End it. I would love to see the entire USDA go..or at least be pruned back to the root.
I have to disagree. I grew up poor, single mother of 5, we ate government cheese and powdered government milk. My mom worked full time while raising us and did the best she could with some help from the government on rent and food. She eventually earned a college degree going to school part time, took her like 8-10 years but she did it.
Do some defraud and abuse government assistance programs absolutely, but I hate to see people broad brushing everyone on assistance as drug addicts, alcoholics, or lazy because that is not true.
Our backgrounds sound very similar.
My mother worked up to 3 jobs at a time also went to school, raised 4 kids. She didn't use welfare, however...and we would have qualified.
The USDA is a monstrous, bloated and unnecessary racket. They engage dependent families and then they use that to justify every land and money grab those criminals in office decide to cook up.
The USDA is in control of the foodstamp program, multiple farm programs, and the USFS.
It's a racket, it needs to end. Cut off all these ridiculous rackets. We will manage to feed the kids...btw forcing Oregonian snap recipients to participate in job programs has resulted in our foodstamp numbers to drop precipitously. People will find work when they have to. I promise. And the truly desperate ones will continue to be helped. Our communities are not going to stand by and allow children in their communities to starve.
Evidently your community is NOT the Republican Party. The government efforts were put in place by the communities. By their elected representatives.
True welfare is temporary & already requires efforts to gain employment. I wish you people would get better informed.
How much is being spent on 'defense', again?
My Judgemental here is a freaking expert.That's one of the problems with the ends of the spectrum - we just knee-jerk to or against virtually every issue, not listening to, considering, or giving an inch to the other side.This is one of the many issues on which fundamentalist libertarian thinking makes people look just awful.
As a society, we make decisions on who we should help as a group. Children who are poor and undernourished through no fault of their own would be an example.
So we help. Even if the help isn't perfectly efficient. Even if systems don't always work the way they should. We just do it.
One of the many nasty symptoms of commitment to an ideology is an intellectual paralysis that robs the afflicted of a connection with fundamental human nature.
.
It's the attitude of "we just help no questions asked" is how so many came to easily abuse these programs. Then when the discussion comes up, it's always the dichotomy between those who are against the abusers and those who are for helping the real poor.
Most of the states that cut down their food stamp role did so with people who didn't even have children. In states like Maine, they created requirements that made most people drop out of the program and not one child harmed.
So this joker brings up children when it's likely that states who see a reduction in their grants will not even include children. It's just a way to tug at the hearts of Americans so they get their way.
We should be better than this, don't you think? Who is the first to be the adult in the room?
.
Here is the problem:
We on the right are all for helping out the truly needy. But I stress the word "truly." We would like to see people get off of welfare instead of on.
On the left, the more government dependents, the better; the more likely Democrat voters. So they have no interest in getting people off of these programs. When they get in power, let anybody who wants to get on these programs get on them.
So when we talk about the so-called poor, we are talking about a mixture of people who need assistance and people who are on assistance because they got on so easily and really don't need it.
The solution to the problem of course would be if we only put the truly need on them, but Democrats would never go for that. It works against their political goals.
Did you knov there are zero Republicans on welfare, food stamps etc. Nope, not a one. Just because Red States lead the pack in government money grubbing does not mean anything. I can hop over the mountain into a county that is one of the most Republican in the State of Pennsylvania ans see lots of people on government assistance.
TanF is a program designed to get people on their own. Most people leave the program through employment. So quit lying about this all the time.
You people want a low minimum wage & when people work those jobs they still need help. That is subsidizing corporrations, your favorite way to spend money.
The fact is you don't know shit why people need help. You are just a selfish little shit.
Here's the conundrum... I think bringing children into this world that you cannot afford to support is a disgrace and borders on neglect. Now, with that being said, we certainly can't hold the child accountable by not making sure they at least have the basics.
However, this should n't absolve the parents of any requirements of them to get the help.
My Judgemental here is a freaking expert.That's one of the problems with the ends of the spectrum - we just knee-jerk to or against virtually every issue, not listening to, considering, or giving an inch to the other side.This is one of the many issues on which fundamentalist libertarian thinking makes people look just awful.
As a society, we make decisions on who we should help as a group. Children who are poor and undernourished through no fault of their own would be an example.
So we help. Even if the help isn't perfectly efficient. Even if systems don't always work the way they should. We just do it.
One of the many nasty symptoms of commitment to an ideology is an intellectual paralysis that robs the afflicted of a connection with fundamental human nature.
.
It's the attitude of "we just help no questions asked" is how so many came to easily abuse these programs. Then when the discussion comes up, it's always the dichotomy between those who are against the abusers and those who are for helping the real poor.
Most of the states that cut down their food stamp role did so with people who didn't even have children. In states like Maine, they created requirements that made most people drop out of the program and not one child harmed.
So this joker brings up children when it's likely that states who see a reduction in their grants will not even include children. It's just a way to tug at the hearts of Americans so they get their way.
We should be better than this, don't you think? Who is the first to be the adult in the room?
.
Here is the problem:
We on the right are all for helping out the truly needy. But I stress the word "truly." We would like to see people get off of welfare instead of on.
On the left, the more government dependents, the better; the more likely Democrat voters. So they have no interest in getting people off of these programs. When they get in power, let anybody who wants to get on these programs get on them.
So when we talk about the so-called poor, we are talking about a mixture of people who need assistance and people who are on assistance because they got on so easily and really don't need it.
The solution to the problem of course would be if we only put the truly need on them, but Democrats would never go for that. It works against their political goals.
Did you knov there are zero Republicans on welfare, food stamps etc. Nope, not a one. Just because Red States lead the pack in government money grubbing does not mean anything. I can hop over the mountain into a county that is one of the most Republican in the State of Pennsylvania ans see lots of people on government assistance.
TanF is a program designed to get people on their own. Most people leave the program through employment. So quit lying about this all the time.
You people want a low minimum wage & when people work those jobs they still need help. That is subsidizing corporrations, your favorite way to spend money.
The fact is you don't know shit why people need help. You are just a selfish little shit.
Yes, I am selfish. What made me that way? Could it be those people I see at the store with their SNAP's cards? You know, they load the belt full of goodies, pay for them with SNAP's, and then whip out that wad of cash for their cigarettes , beer, flowers, huge bags of dog food, cat litter, perfume......
I see it all the time. Now they are in line bugging us to buy some of our food items. They want to check out 30 bucks of our items, and when we get out of line, we pay them 15 bucks for the items they bought for us. The store is working on throwing those people out, but few will take the time to report them.
I know all about those people. In fact had to evict a food stamp family from one of my apartments. Same thing, huge dog, both smoked, Obama phone, three cats, and the woman stayed home all day doing nothing.
Can you name a GOP president who did not go to a university or collegeI have three kids in college turdStill not doing your studying.Take your pills as prescribed
Doubtful. Those are "liberal indoctrination centers".
lol
Can you named a democrat president who colluded with the Russians?
This is fun, what else ya got?
Can you name a GOP president who did not go to a university or collegeI have three kids in college turdStill not doing your studying.
Doubtful. Those are "liberal indoctrination centers".
lol
Can you named a democrat president who colluded with the Russians?
This is fun, what else ya got?
Can you name me a Republican President that colluded with the Russians?
Here's the conundrum... I think bringing children into this world that you cannot afford to support is a disgrace and borders on neglect. Now, with that being said, we certainly can't hold the child accountable by not making sure they at least have the basics.
However, this should n't absolve the parents of any requirements of them to get the help.
If it were up to me, a requirement to receive government aid would be getting fixed before you get one red cent. No more having kids while on social programs. You can never eliminate poverty when the government rewards you for making more people in poverty. The apple usually doesn't fall far from the tree.
Can you name a GOP president who did not go to a university or collegeI have three kids in college turdStill not doing your studying.
Doubtful. Those are "liberal indoctrination centers".
lol
Can you named a democrat president who colluded with the Russians?
This is fun, what else ya got?
Can you name me a Republican President that colluded with the Russians?
Can you name a GOP president who did not go to a university or collegeI have three kids in college turd
Doubtful. Those are "liberal indoctrination centers".
lol
Can you named a democrat president who colluded with the Russians?
This is fun, what else ya got?
Can you name me a Republican President that colluded with the Russians?
no president worth his salt allowed Russians in the WhiteHouse, behind closed doors, unattended by US security EXCEPT DON TRAITOR TRUMP.
FK TRUMP
HEY ALL LOOK it's a F*CKING NAZI!
Forced sterilization.
Nice call you moron!
Here's the conundrum... I think bringing children into this world that you cannot afford to support is a disgrace and borders on neglect. Now, with that being said, we certainly can't hold the child accountable by not making sure they at least have the basics.
However, this should n't absolve the parents of any requirements of them to get the help.
If it were up to me, a requirement to receive government aid would be getting fixed before you get one red cent. No more having kids while on social programs. You can never eliminate poverty when the government rewards you for making more people in poverty. The apple usually doesn't fall far from the tree.
Poverty is not a choiceCan she name these children, even one of themShame on you for talking in stereotypes. IF is a pretty big word, and IF you think you can dictate how these low income folks live their lives and spend their money, go for it. I think you might find it difficult. In the meantime, their kids aren't getting the groceries they need for healthy brain development and sturdy bones, etc. Malnutrition is absolutely unforgivable in this nation. Yes, I agree that we need to make a serious effort to get some folks off perpetual welfare; that starts by making sure the current children living in poverty have the best start we can give them. THAT is what changes the situation, eventually. There is no overnight magic wand solution.If the parents of these low income children simply cut out the cigarettes, lottery tickets, booze, and tattoos -these children would have plenty of food. Shame on them.
I don't care how they live their lives.
You need to develop critical thinking skills.
You're falling prey to emotional blackmail. boo hooo...."those poor children!"
Of course not, nobody can because they don't exist.
Poverty is a choice- the parents choose to get high or drunk over being responsible.
Fact America is the only country where the poor people weigh more than those who have jobsLOL Shut up, troll. My granddaughter graduates high school next month. I've worked with low income families for years in various capacities, and I've met plenty of kids who were ravenous when they got to school for their free breakfast and lunch. Summers, they're not so lucky. Our state has already instituted the restrictions that are in the Ag bill this thread is discussing, so it won't have any additional effect here. But yeah, there are plenty of hungry kids out there, and I've met a bunch of them. Sometimes their parents too. I've had students that I've casually "fed" by bringing "snacks" and extra sandwiches when I wasn't hungry in the least. And they inhale it.My kids are well fed, can you name even one child who will not eat because of trumpWhy don't we start with the names of your children, Rosy?Can she name these children, even one of themShame on you for talking in stereotypes. IF is a pretty big word, and IF you think you can dictate how these low income folks live their lives and spend their money, go for it. I think you might find it difficult. In the meantime, their kids aren't getting the groceries they need for healthy brain development and sturdy bones, etc. Malnutrition is absolutely unforgivable in this nation. Yes, I agree that we need to make a serious effort to get some folks off perpetual welfare; that starts by making sure the current children living in poverty have the best start we can give them. THAT is what changes the situation, eventually. There is no overnight magic wand solution.
I don't care how they live their lives.
You need to develop critical thinking skills.
You're falling prey to emotional blackmail. boo hooo...."those poor children!"
What kind of comment was that, anyway?
nope, thus you stand corrected old maid...
why did you never have kids, did you abort them?
How much is being spent on 'defense', again?
Like the multi-national corporations that make $$Billions yet they all want a subsidy. Doesn't that just piss you off!
My Judgemental here is a freaking expert.That's one of the problems with the ends of the spectrum - we just knee-jerk to or against virtually every issue, not listening to, considering, or giving an inch to the other side.It's the attitude of "we just help no questions asked" is how so many came to easily abuse these programs. Then when the discussion comes up, it's always the dichotomy between those who are against the abusers and those who are for helping the real poor.
Most of the states that cut down their food stamp role did so with people who didn't even have children. In states like Maine, they created requirements that made most people drop out of the program and not one child harmed.
So this joker brings up children when it's likely that states who see a reduction in their grants will not even include children. It's just a way to tug at the hearts of Americans so they get their way.
We should be better than this, don't you think? Who is the first to be the adult in the room?
.
Here is the problem:
We on the right are all for helping out the truly needy. But I stress the word "truly." We would like to see people get off of welfare instead of on.
On the left, the more government dependents, the better; the more likely Democrat voters. So they have no interest in getting people off of these programs. When they get in power, let anybody who wants to get on these programs get on them.
So when we talk about the so-called poor, we are talking about a mixture of people who need assistance and people who are on assistance because they got on so easily and really don't need it.
The solution to the problem of course would be if we only put the truly need on them, but Democrats would never go for that. It works against their political goals.
Did you knov there are zero Republicans on welfare, food stamps etc. Nope, not a one. Just because Red States lead the pack in government money grubbing does not mean anything. I can hop over the mountain into a county that is one of the most Republican in the State of Pennsylvania ans see lots of people on government assistance.
TanF is a program designed to get people on their own. Most people leave the program through employment. So quit lying about this all the time.
You people want a low minimum wage & when people work those jobs they still need help. That is subsidizing corporrations, your favorite way to spend money.
The fact is you don't know shit why people need help. You are just a selfish little shit.
Yes, I am selfish. What made me that way? Could it be those people I see at the store with their SNAP's cards? You know, they load the belt full of goodies, pay for them with SNAP's, and then whip out that wad of cash for their cigarettes , beer, flowers, huge bags of dog food, cat litter, perfume......
I see it all the time. Now they are in line bugging us to buy some of our food items. They want to check out 30 bucks of our items, and when we get out of line, we pay them 15 bucks for the items they bought for us. The store is working on throwing those people out, but few will take the time to report them.
I know all about those people. In fact had to evict a food stamp family from one of my apartments. Same thing, huge dog, both smoked, Obama phone, three cats, and the woman stayed home all day doing nothing.
Here's the conundrum... I think bringing children into this world that you cannot afford to support is a disgrace and borders on neglect. Now, with that being said, we certainly can't hold the child accountable by not making sure they at least have the basics.
However, this should n't absolve the parents of any requirements of them to get the help.
If it were up to me, a requirement to receive government aid would be getting fixed before you get one red cent. No more having kids while on social programs. You can never eliminate poverty when the government rewards you for making more people in poverty. The apple usually doesn't fall far from the tree.
- Signed the "Christian"
Like the multi-national corporations that make $$Billions yet they all want a subsidy. Doesn't that just piss you off!
My Judgemental here is a freaking expert.That's one of the problems with the ends of the spectrum - we just knee-jerk to or against virtually every issue, not listening to, considering, or giving an inch to the other side.
We should be better than this, don't you think? Who is the first to be the adult in the room?
.
Here is the problem:
We on the right are all for helping out the truly needy. But I stress the word "truly." We would like to see people get off of welfare instead of on.
On the left, the more government dependents, the better; the more likely Democrat voters. So they have no interest in getting people off of these programs. When they get in power, let anybody who wants to get on these programs get on them.
So when we talk about the so-called poor, we are talking about a mixture of people who need assistance and people who are on assistance because they got on so easily and really don't need it.
The solution to the problem of course would be if we only put the truly need on them, but Democrats would never go for that. It works against their political goals.
Did you knov there are zero Republicans on welfare, food stamps etc. Nope, not a one. Just because Red States lead the pack in government money grubbing does not mean anything. I can hop over the mountain into a county that is one of the most Republican in the State of Pennsylvania ans see lots of people on government assistance.
TanF is a program designed to get people on their own. Most people leave the program through employment. So quit lying about this all the time.
You people want a low minimum wage & when people work those jobs they still need help. That is subsidizing corporrations, your favorite way to spend money.
The fact is you don't know shit why people need help. You are just a selfish little shit.
Yes, I am selfish. What made me that way? Could it be those people I see at the store with their SNAP's cards? You know, they load the belt full of goodies, pay for them with SNAP's, and then whip out that wad of cash for their cigarettes , beer, flowers, huge bags of dog food, cat litter, perfume......
I see it all the time. Now they are in line bugging us to buy some of our food items. They want to check out 30 bucks of our items, and when we get out of line, we pay them 15 bucks for the items they bought for us. The store is working on throwing those people out, but few will take the time to report them.
I know all about those people. In fact had to evict a food stamp family from one of my apartments. Same thing, huge dog, both smoked, Obama phone, three cats, and the woman stayed home all day doing nothing.
No. What pisses me off are when the lying left call tax breaks a subsidy. They really think everybody is as stupid as they are.
HEY ALL LOOK it's a F*CKING NAZI!
Forced sterilization.
Nice call you moron!
Here's the conundrum... I think bringing children into this world that you cannot afford to support is a disgrace and borders on neglect. Now, with that being said, we certainly can't hold the child accountable by not making sure they at least have the basics.
However, this should n't absolve the parents of any requirements of them to get the help.
If it were up to me, a requirement to receive government aid would be getting fixed before you get one red cent. No more having kids while on social programs. You can never eliminate poverty when the government rewards you for making more people in poverty. The apple usually doesn't fall far from the tree.
What do you think working people do when they can't afford anymore kids moron? We get ourselves fixed so we can't have anymore kids.
Can you name a GOP president who did not go to a university or collegeDoubtful. Those are "liberal indoctrination centers".
lol
Can you named a democrat president who colluded with the Russians?
This is fun, what else ya got?
Can you name me a Republican President that colluded with the Russians?
no president worth his salt allowed Russians in the WhiteHouse, behind closed doors, unattended by US security EXCEPT DON TRAITOR TRUMP.
FK TRUMP
Yeah, next thing you know he'll be inviting Black Lies Matter into the White House.
They tried that in New Jersey years and years ago. Got shot down, probably by the courts, real quick. So try to think of another way without stunting the next generation's brains.Here's the conundrum... I think bringing children into this world that you cannot afford to support is a disgrace and borders on neglect. Now, with that being said, we certainly can't hold the child accountable by not making sure they at least have the basics.
However, this should n't absolve the parents of any requirements of them to get the help.
If it were up to me, a requirement to receive government aid would be getting fixed before you get one red cent. No more having kids while on social programs. You can never eliminate poverty when the government rewards you for making more people in poverty. The apple usually doesn't fall far from the tree.
